Once again my comprehension challenged friend. I've never stated a desire to ban semi-auto firearms. I've only stated a desire to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. I only stated the function of a semi-auto action is not dependent upon the capacity of a magazine. It is in fact dependent on having a live round to fire thereby initiating the action to perform its ejecting and reloading cycle.

Whether the magazine looks like a banana, pretzel, or a Jackson Pollock painting has no bearing on the action of the weapon itself. As long as it can supply a fresh round after a spent casing has been ejected.

As usual you are attempting to make the argument a false dichotomy.

Please try again.

And you have yet to offer any proof that a high capacity magazine has been a factor, though I've asked you to prove it numerous times. Who is having comprehension issues?
As far as a false dichotomy, what is it when you try to convince me what the 2nd amendment states what I can't own
I disagree. I would agree if I could be sure that you practiced to the level of police. I can not be assured that you as a citizen will do that.

So in your elitism, you presume to know, as a civilian, how many times I make it to the range and/or practice with my firearms. Well I can guarantee it is significantly more than the once a year range qualification required by POST.

My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788Elevator Rescue Information

And you have yet to offer any proof that a high capacity magazine has been a factor, though I've asked you to prove it numerous times. Who is having comprehension issues?

I've stated my position several times and why I have that belief. Feel free to reread my posts. If you don't understand, I cannot help you with basic reading and comprehension. It boils down to that I believe that giving potential victims a few seconds is more important than your need to own a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. One can still enjoy using a semi-auto weapon for sporting or protection purposes. Especially since you have claimed that changing a magazine requires very little time.

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

As far as a false dichotomy, what is it when you try to convince me what the 2nd amendment states what I can't own

I don't have to do that. The SCOTUS has done that in its previous opinions. They have upheld challenges to enacted laws that stipulate what type of weapons you can own.

Originally Posted by SPFDRum

So in your elitism, you presume to know, as a civilian, how many times I make it to the range and/or practice with my firearms. Well I can guarantee it is significantly more than the once a year range qualification required by POST.

I only have your word for it. Unless I have documentation (as required by POST), that is your claim that is currently unsubstantiated.

OK, you've convinced me that I'm all wrong. I'm gonna go write a letter to my Senator to see about making it mandatory for everybody to own at least 2 guns (just in case 1 doesn't work).

And the debate comes to a screeching halt because you don't have facts you have assumptions, and talking points.

You see I don't have a problem with someone having a differimg opinion than mine. What I have a problem with is people like you and SC talking about a topic you don't have any technical knowledge of and believing that is okay.

Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."

It is a made up term that VAGUELY describes a category of firearms.. so vague in fact that some of the catch-alls could be interpreted to apply to all Semi-automatic firearms.

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Be afraid of the Scary Black Guns! Even though it's been shown that the 223 is less dangerous(from a wound channel and over-penetration perspective) than most hunting rifles (308..etc).

In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995.Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity when he carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack as part of a carefully planned massacre.
Cho used seventeen of the magazines and fired approximately 170 rounds—or ten rounds per magazine—from two handguns before killing himself.

Mag caps won't work to stop situations where a bad person has time to plan their attack. As shown with Columbine and VT, the bad guy will just bring more mags.. or more firearms.

Magazine size DOES impact Home defense.. a much more emergent and dynamic situation where the homeowner may not have time to grab multiple magazines.

Also keep in mind that it's not the movies. People don't always stop on the first shot. There was something in the news where a lady (protecting her kids) hit the intruder 7 times with a 38 and the guy was still able to drive away.. darkness, multiple intruders..etc.. point to possible situations where a magazine > 10 rounds would be necessary for HD.

It has been estimated that at least 3.3 million AR-15 rifles were sold in the United States between 1986 and 2009. In its ubiquity, the AR-15 is a modern musket—the default rifle with which law-abiding Americans exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS has already established, through the Heller and McDonald cases, that firearm ownership is an individual right, and that 2A applies to weapons "in common use" by military and law enforcement.

It is a made up term that VAGUELY describes a category of firearms.. so vague in fact that some of the catch-alls could be interpreted to apply to all Semi-automatic firearms.

Be afraid of the Scary Black Guns! Even though it's been shown that the 223 is less dangerous(from a wound channel and over-penetration perspective) than most hunting rifles (308..etc).

Mag caps won't work to stop situations where a bad person has time to plan their attack. As shown with Columbine and VT, the bad guy will just bring more mags.. or more firearms.

Magazine size DOES impact Home defense.. a much more emergent and dynamic situation where the homeowner may not have time to grab multiple magazines.

Also keep in mind that it's not the movies. People don't always stop on the first shot. There was something in the news where a lady (protecting her kids) hit the intruder 7 times with a 38 and the guy was still able to drive away.. darkness, multiple intruders..etc.. point to possible situations where a magazine > 10 rounds would be necessary for HD.

SCOTUS has already established, through the Heller and McDonald cases, that firearm ownership is an individual right, and that 2A applies to weapons "in common use" by military and law enforcement.

Excellent post, thank you for backing up the comments I made earlier saying assault weapon was a made up term by anti-gunners.

Also keep in mind that it's not the movies. People don't always stop on the first shot. There was something in the news where a lady (protecting her kids) hit the intruder 7 times with a 38 and the guy was still able to drive away.. darkness, multiple intruders..etc.. point to possible situations where a magazine > 10 rounds would be necessary for HD.

The intruder drove away. The objective was accomplished in that the threat was neutralized and she and her children were unharmed. I would wager the majority of HD cases involve less than 10 rounds. BTW, most of those who disagree with my opinion have stated repeatedly that changing magazines is a very brief interval. So (according to them) it is not a factor in one's use of a weapon to defend one's self.

Originally Posted by voyager9

SCOTUS has already established, through the Heller and McDonald cases, that firearm ownership is an individual right, and that 2A applies to weapons "in common use" by military and law enforcement.

True, but there are weapons in common use by the military a civilian is not allowed to own. Try buying a hand grenade legally. Or a cannon (defined as a weapon that can shoot an explosive projectile).

The intruder drove away. The objective was accomplished in that the threat was neutralized and she and her children were unharmed. I would wager the majority of HD cases involve less than 10 rounds.

Yes the intruder retreated and drove away but in this case she was lucky. If he is able to drive then he possibly could also continue to press the attack. Especially if the most recent thing he heard wasn't BANG, but CLICK. Or if there were multiple intruders.

Originally Posted by scfire86

BTW, most of those who disagree with my opinion have stated repeatedly that changing magazines is a very brief interval. So (according to them) it is not a factor in one's use of a weapon to defend one's self.

I'm going to split the above. Yes the amount of time required to change a magazine CAN BE very small, a second or two with training. It is definitely not a factor for those who have the time and will to plan, prepare, train, and commit a single event. That doesn't mean it's not a factor for home defense where the time to mentally prepare can be essentially zero. Someone may have multiple magazines prepared for HD but in the heat of the moment will they forget to grab the 2nd one? Even with advanced preparation the need to put in action is (hopefully) such a rare event that there's a lot of 'wait time'.

A analogy: When I'm on duty with the FD I'm 100% ready to jump on the Engine, arrive on location, get a line in service, and put out the fire. That doesn't mean when I'm off duty and home in bed that I won't forget some parts of my home evacuation plan if the smoke detectors wake me up in the middle of the night.

Originally Posted by scfire86

True, but there are weapons in common use by the military a civilian is not allowed to own. Try buying a hand grenade legally. Or a cannon (defined as a weapon that can shoot an explosive projectile).

Yes. Most of these are banned by the NFA.. which could be seen as violating the 2A based on Heller/McDonald. The NFA has not been challenged on these grounds in front of SCOTUS so there is no precedence.

In MY opinion the wording of the 2A implies inherent limitations in that it talks about firearms (Arms).. which in typical definition equate to rifles, pistols or other portable guns.. basically portable and usable by a single person. That would disqualify many of the oft-touted "What about..." things like Nuclear Weapons, Tanks, and hand grenades... the I admit in my definition above HAND grenades would be limited but a grenade launcher (being portable/used by a single person) would be ok.. .

The bigger point is that semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15 and similar are definitely in common use among the military, law enforcement, and civilian circles and would be covered under previous SCOTUS rulings.

Yes the intruder retreated and drove away but in this case she was lucky. If he is able to drive then he possibly could also continue to press the attack. Especially if the most recent thing he heard wasn't BANG, but CLICK. Or if there were multiple intruders.

What if...what if....what if. The intruder drove away. If you can cite an example that substantiates your scenario I would be interested to read it.

Originally Posted by voyager9

I'm going to split the above. Yes the amount of time required to change a magazine CAN BE very small, a second or two with training. It is definitely not a factor for those who have the time and will to plan, prepare, train, and commit a single event. That doesn't mean it's not a factor for home defense where the time to mentally prepare can be essentially zero. Someone may have multiple magazines prepared for HD but in the heat of the moment will they forget to grab the 2nd one? Even with advanced preparation the need to put in action is (hopefully) such a rare event that there's a lot of 'wait time'.

Not according to those on this board. The claim is that magazine capacity is of little effect since a gunman (or woman) will just carry multiple magazines or additional firearms. The belief is the aggressors will be proficient in their ability to change either.

Originally Posted by voyager9

A analogy: When I'm on duty with the FD I'm 100% ready to jump on the Engine, arrive on location, get a line in service, and put out the fire. That doesn't mean when I'm off duty and home in bed that I won't forget some parts of my home evacuation plan if the smoke detectors wake me up in the middle of the night.

See above response.

Originally Posted by voyager9

Yes. Most of these are banned by the NFA.. which could be seen as violating the 2A based on Heller/McDonald. The NFA has not been challenged on these grounds in front of SCOTUS so there is no precedence.

In which case the ability to write law establishing limits is valid.

Originally Posted by voyager9

In MY opinion the wording of the 2A implies inherent limitations in that it talks about firearms (Arms).. which in typical definition equate to rifles, pistols or other portable guns.. basically portable and usable by a single person. That would disqualify many of the oft-touted "What about..." things like Nuclear Weapons, Tanks, and hand grenades... the I admit in my definition above HAND grenades would be limited but a grenade launcher (being portable/used by a single person) would be ok.. .

It does not specify firearms. Arms is a whole different definition. This is important given the exactitude demanded in the defining by (gun advocates) in what constitutes an "assault" weapon.

Originally Posted by voyager9

The bigger point is that semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15 and similar are definitely in common use among the military, law enforcement, and civilian circles and would be covered under previous SCOTUS rulings.

I agree. I have no problem with owning them. My beliefs towards restrictions is limited to magazine capacity.

What if? What if? Are you effing kidding me? WHAT IF the criminal didn't break numerous laws to begin with?
But thats what criminals do, break laws. That's what makes all your little feel good bans and restrictions just plain asinine.
We protect our children with signs that state guns are banned here, what could possibly go wrong?

My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788Elevator Rescue Information

What if...what if....what if. The intruder drove away. If you can cite an example that substantiates your scenario I would be interested to read it.

Isn't almost everything in the proposed ban 'what if'? Don't deflect. Me saying 'what if the intruder had pressed the attack after 7 hits" isn't much different then Feinstein saying "What if the attacker only had 10 round mags instead of 30".

Originally Posted by scfire86

Not according to those on this board. The claim is that magazine capacity is of little effect since a gunman (or woman) will just carry multiple magazines or additional firearms. The belief is the aggressors will be proficient in their ability to change either.

Not arguing anyone's ability to change quickly.. What I'm arguing is the ability to change a magazine quickly is 100% dependent on having multiple magazines. Something much more likely for someone preparing for an immediate event versus reacting to a home invasion.

Either way, in almost all cases the default situation is 'not banned' and it is up to the Banee to show that said Ban would be beneficial. Similar to Innocent until proven guilty. In this case how can you recommend a ban if it has been shown (by Columbine and VT) that magazine limits have no impact?

Originally Posted by scfire86

In which case the ability to write law establishing limits is valid.

In this I agree, though I am not a lawyer. As of right now limits could be established as long as they do not cross Heller/McDonald including their "in common use" interpretation. Something that all the current bills that involve bans do.. Certainly Feinstein's bill (and NJ's and NY's and CT's and..) sprint past Heller/McDonnald without looking back.

I believe that if someone were to pursue a case that the NFA violates 2A based on Heller/McDonald it would stand a chance of being ruled unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by scfire86

It does not specify firearms. Arms is a whole different definition. This is important given the exactitude demanded in the defining by (gun advocates) in what constitutes an "assault" weapon.

I think you would agree that a level of exactitude should exist when defining something where mere possession of it by a citizen makes them a felon. It is not the "Gun Advocates" who wish to define AW so much as it is "Gun Control supporters" who wish to leave it undefined so that it can be changed to best suit political agendas.
For those taking the SAT's:
Assault Weapon:2A
Hate Speech:1A

Originally Posted by scfire86

My beliefs towards restrictions is limited to magazine capacity.

As mentioned above. I'm curious why as it has been demonstrated that said limit would do nothing to thwart those with enough time to plan, prepare, and train. Even assuming a mag size limit is the right way to go, which I don't, what is the right number? What data shows that 10 is ok but 30 (the default magazine size) or 15 (the NJ limit) is not? or what about NY which just instituted a 7 round limit? Or 5 (what NJ and CT are now proposing)? If you're going to propose a ban, show data on why it would be effective and why the limit should be set where you propose. Again this can't be "Why would you need more than N rounds?".. I don't have to defend why it shouldn't be limited, it is up to you, as the advocate for the limit, to show why said number is the right limit.

Isn't almost everything in the proposed ban 'what if'? Don't deflect. Me saying 'what if the intruder had pressed the attack after 7 hits" isn't much different then Feinstein saying "What if the attacker only had 10 round mags instead of 30".

I'll deal with what actually happened. The victim was able to fend off her attacker with less than 10 rounds. I'm betting that is the rule and not the exception.

Originally Posted by voyager9

Not arguing anyone's ability to change quickly.. What I'm arguing is the ability to change a magazine quickly is 100% dependent on having multiple magazines. Something much more likely for someone preparing for an immediate event versus reacting to a home invasion.

Neither of us know if that is a reasonable assumption or not.

Originally Posted by voyager9

Either way, in almost all cases the default situation is 'not banned' and it is up to the Banee to show that said Ban would be beneficial. Similar to Innocent until proven guilty. In this case how can you recommend a ban if it has been shown (by Columbine and VT) that magazine limits have no impact?

My premise has always been that those seconds give the victims time to either rush the shooter or run away. I know that rushing the shooter during magazine change out has occurred in at least two incidents and we have no idea how many people were able to run from the assailant(s) at Columbine and VA Tech and survive.

Originally Posted by voyager9

In this I agree, though I am not a lawyer. As of right now limits could be established as long as they do not cross Heller/McDonald including their "in common use" interpretation. Something that all the current bills that involve bans do.. Certainly Feinstein's bill (and NJ's and NY's and CT's and..) sprint past Heller/McDonnald without looking back.

Since I believe in the concept of checks and balances and separate branches of government, I will leave it up to the courts to determine if any future laws that might be passed and signed into law are constitutional or not.

Originally Posted by voyager9

I believe that if someone were to pursue a case that the NFA violates 2A based on Heller/McDonald it would stand a chance of being ruled unconstitutional.

See above response. I'm sure those writing any proposed legislation will take that opinion into consideration.

Originally Posted by voyager9

I think you would agree that a level of exactitude should exist when defining something where mere possession of it by a citizen makes them a felon. It is not the "Gun Advocates" who wish to define AW so much as it is "Gun Control supporters" who wish to leave it undefined so that it can be changed to best suit political agendas.
For those taking the SAT's:
Assault Weapon:2A
Hate Speech:1A

See above response.

Originally Posted by voyager9

As mentioned above. I'm curious why as it has been demonstrated that said limit would do nothing to thwart those with enough time to plan, prepare, and train. Even assuming a mag size limit is the right way to go, which I don't, what is the right number? What data shows that 10 is ok but 30 (the default magazine size) or 15 (the NJ limit) is not? or what about NY which just instituted a 7 round limit? Or 5 (what NJ and CT are now proposing)? If you're going to propose a ban, show data on why it would be effective and why the limit should be set where you propose. Again this can't be "Why would you need more than N rounds?".. I don't have to defend why it shouldn't be limited, it is up to you, as the advocate for the limit, to show why said number is the right limit.

I already answered this earlier in this response and in several other responses during the course of this and the other thread.

The intruder drove away. The objective was accomplished in that the threat was neutralized and she and her children were unharmed. I would wager the majority of HD cases involve less than 10 rounds. BTW, most of those who disagree with my opinion have stated repeatedly that changing magazines is a very brief interval. So (according to them) it is not a factor in one's use of a weapon to defend one's self.

You sir are nothing more than a pot stirring bitch. You have been told repeatedly it is quite one thing to be a gunman and be shooting unarmed people, including children and quite another being involved in a gun fight with either combatants or armed criminals. Obviously if no one is shooting at you it is less urgent to have a magazine with more capacity than if you are gunning down innocent people. Look at columbine where one of the shooters reloaded at least 10 times. NO ONE MOVED TO STOP HIM, they did the common place flee or hide tactic.

Keep saying the same stupid crap over and over because that is how the anti-gun crowd works. Tell the same lie over and over until you get people to believe it. Kind of like incorrectly calling a semi-automatic rifle an assault rifle. Or making up the word assault weapon.

True, but there are weapons in common use by the military a civilian is not allowed to own. Try buying a hand grenade legally. Or a cannon (defined as a weapon that can shoot an explosive projectile).

Show legal factual documentation to prove you can't own a hand grenade or a cannon. You see I have posted facts and FBI statistics to back what I have said. You just shoot off your mouth and expect others to say well that must be right. Not me, show me the federal law that says I can't own and cannon or a hand grenade with the proper permits and licenses.

My premise has always been that those seconds give the victims time to either rush the shooter or run away. I know that rushing the shooter during magazine change out has occurred in at least two incidents and we have no idea how many people were able to run from the assailant(s) at Columbine and VA Tech and survive.

I do believe that in those few times that the victims were able to "rush" the gunman, it was not so much that the suspect was changing mags, but in fact a malfunction had occurred and they were unable to bring his/her weapon back on line before being "rush".

I've been in a gun battle and trust me, the thought of counting rounds and hoping I was right and he was making a mag change, so I could "rush" him never entered into my mind.

“Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
- Capt. Marc Cox CFD

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
-WINSTON CHURCHILL

What if...what if....what if. The intruder drove away. If you can cite an example that substantiates your scenario I would be interested to read it.

Why? You don't back up most of the nonsense you spew.

Not according to those on this board. The claim is that magazine capacity is of little effect since a gunman (or woman) will just carry multiple magazines or additional firearms. The belief is the aggressors will be proficient in their ability to change either.

No, you refuse to listen so you keep repeating nonsense.

See above response.

You too.

In which case the ability to write law establishing limits is valid.

Not in anyone's mind but yours and the rest of the anti-gunners.

It does not specify firearms. Arms is a whole different definition. This is important given the exactitude demanded in the defining by (gun advocates) in what constitutes an "assault" weapon.

Arms specifically meant firearms and you know it, the founding fathers clearly explain that in their personal writings on the topic. Crossbows, long bows, and for the most part swords had been far superceded by firearms at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Ammendments. Nice try at revisionist history. It is really a shame you are so ignorant on this topic that this kind of game playing is all you have.

I agree. I have no problem with owning them. My beliefs towards restrictions is limited to magazine capacity.

Then restrict yourself to 5 or 10 round magazine and leave the rest of us LAW ABIDING citizens alone.

I thought you said you were done with this topic...Guess you couldn't tell the truth about that either.

I'll deal with what actually happened. The victim was able to fend off her attacker with less than 10 rounds. I'm betting that is the rule and not the exception.

Show statisitics to defend your viewpoint or it is just more clap trap. You want proof but never provide any to support your feeble ascertations.

Neither of us know if that is a reasonable assumption or not.

You are right, you don't know, add that to the rest of what you don't know on this topic and you could fill volumes.

My premise has always been that those seconds give the victims time to either rush the shooter or run away. I know that rushing the shooter during magazine change out has occurred in at least two incidents and we have no idea how many people were able to run from the assailant(s) at Columbine and VA Tech and survive.

So once again you really have no basis to support anything other than the 2 cases you mentioned. When there are in fact far more where no one did anything except flee, hide or get shot.

Since I believe in the concept of checks and balances and separate branches of government, I will leave it up to the courts to determine if any future laws that might be passed and signed into law are constitutional or not.

Including the absolute BS of bypassing the Congress with executive orders? Have you seen the states that are passing pre-emptive laws to prevent federal intervention restricting 2nd Ammendment rights? Have you seen the list of sheriffs that have said they will NOT enforce what they see as illegal laws against the 2nd Ammendment? This is not going to end quietly, people are angry at their rights being attacked again instead of the real problems of punishing criminals and fixing the mental health care system.

See above response. I'm sure those writing any proposed legislation will take that opinion into consideration.

Probably not. Have you paid attention to how the mayor of chicago has worked to circumvent that decision?

See above response.

You too.

I already answered this earlier in this response and in several other responses during the course of this and the other thread.

No, you really didn't. You tried to make a comparison between a gunmen essentially executing victims, and the military in combat, and a homeowner defending his family. Ludicrous and really beneath even you and the game playing you believe you are a master at. Too bad you have been shown to be wrong so many times on this topic.

You should have just kept your word for once and stayed gone from this topic.

I do believe that in those few times that the victims were able to "rush" the gunman, it was not so much that the suspect was changing mags, but in fact a malfunction had occurred and they were unable to bring his/her weapon back on line before being "rush".

I've been in a gun battle and trust me, the thought of counting rounds and hoping I was right and he was making a mag change, so I could "rush" him never entered into my mind.

My premise has always been that those seconds give the victims time to either rush the shooter or run away. I know that rushing the shooter during magazine change out has occurred in at least two incidents and we have no idea how many people were able to run from the assailant(s) at Columbine and VA Tech and survive.

Your premise? I thought you dealt in what actually happened. I've shown you two good examples where your premise was invalid. So I ask, where are your facts? And don't say Giffords...as I mentioned above that was stopped because the crowd jumped him when he dropped a mag on the ground. They got lucky.

I said no such thing on this thread. I stated that on a different thread.

Once again you prove your inability to read what is written versus what you believe is written.

If you want responses to your replies, feel free to use the quote function appropriately. I'm done cutting and pasting.

I had hoped you had realized your ignorance of this topic and the fact you are hopelessly outnumbered would trigger a shred of common sense in your melon and you would just go back to beating people up in the political topic.

Ah, now you want to be the forum cop. You still can put me on ignore if you don't like the way I do things. Otherwise shut your pie hole about how I post.

Has everyone noticed the number of states that have passed or are proposing laws that make it illegal for the feds to enforce any guns laws that infringe upon the 2nd Ammendment and if they attempt to enforce them they will be arrested?

How about the growing list of Sheriffs that have sent letters to the president saying they will not enforce illegal laws that infringe upon the rights bestowed by the 2nd Ammendment.

This is going to get REALLY ugly before it is over boys and girls. Even law enforcement and state governments are seeing the fed is overreaching their power on this issue.

By the way how about this tidbit for those that believe modification of the 2nd Ammendment is okay.

You say that the Founding Fathers never envisioned the firearms of today when writing the 2nd Ammendment. I would bet you they never envisoned the telegraph, telephone, radio, television, iPhones, iPads, computers, tablets, Kindles or any other hi-tech media commonly in use today. Maybe we should look at modifying the 1st Ammendment due to technological changes too!

Almost all of those state and local laws would be struck down for violating the supremacy clause. Fed laws always trump state or local ones. While they make a good show, such laws would do little to stop enforcement of the fed bills if they become law.

It is nice to see some state or local officials stand by the highest law of the land. Unlike those from my fine state who would use it like a roll of charmin.

The only way that a State/Local law enforcement officer can enforce a Federal Law is if it was/is adopted by the State in which they have jurisdiction. For example, for years the Federal law stated that a convicted felon could not possess a firearm. N.C. State law used to prohibited felons from only possessing hand guns, but allowed them to own/possess a long gun in their home for self protection. N.C. only finally adopted a complete ban on felons possessing a long gun in their homes several years ago.

When state/locally law enforcement try to enforce Federal laws they end up in trouble. Example Federal immigration laws

“Guys if you get hurt, we’ll help you. If you get sick we’ll treat you. If you want to bitch and moan, then all I can tell you is to flick the sand out of your slit, suck it up or get the hell out!”
- Capt. Marc Cox CFD

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.
-WINSTON CHURCHILL